Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Republicans]: The Grand New Party

Posts

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

Right, that's all the stuff you're told to believe in order to think a reasonably moderate candidate is actually some sort of extremist. You really think Romney's presidential activities would have included measures on any of that stuff you mention?

this to me is a silly argument

aside from the science denying bit (which I kind of give romney the benefit of the doubt on), romney/ryan actually engaged in or publicly favored all the stuff mentioned, and obama mostly hasn't. I have most of the same problems with the first obama administration that you do, but romney would've solved none of them and probably added some. In obama we have (at least) a president that successfully found a way to get most americans into some reasonable kind of health care system for the first time ever and seems prepared to do something serious about immigration. And who knows, maybe he'll live up to the whole harvard lawyer/chicago liberal elitist billing in his second term. I doubt it, but it's possible.

ed: and I mean, bush's greatest accomplishment was very nearly privatizing social security, but you know

Eat it You Nasty Pig. on November 2012

so next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib
tell'em thank you for the offer, but you'd rather you live

I think it is telling when you have the most powerful propaganda tool since WWII backing your party, billions poured into influencing people, and you still can't win an election against a fairly weak incumbent during difficult economic times.

This Puerto Rico Statehood thing is a great way for the GOP to rebrand itself, if they can kick the racists out long enough to make some clear calls.

I expect 2016 to be really tough. Things aren't going perfectly? People are going to be pissed at Dems that it's not unicorns and rainbows after 8 years. Things going very well? People stay home content. Unless the Republicans run a Santorum or Bachmann (and possibly even then) it's going to be a hard fight.

I disagree with this only because Obama has given the dems a whole new way to campaign, with super targeted data and ground game. I fully expect the next dem candidate to revive Obama's system and use it. Democratic voter turn out should be great even if everything is good, because the democratic voter turn out machine is great. Even if things are going well, they'll target ground swell issues in specific areas to get people up and to the polls.

I am much more worried about the scenario where everything is shit and people vote in a republican just to have something different.

The biggest worry about 2016 for me is that we get an "insurgent" candidate who is too fucking stupid to ask for the OFA playbook. Once we lose Obama, with his strong commitment to finding what works instead of what we've done in the past, I really hope whoever is next is sensible enough to take up that mantle for his organization.

I think it is telling when you have the most powerful propaganda tool since WWII backing your party, billions poured into influencing people, and you still can't win an election against a fairly weak incumbent during difficult economic times.

This Puerto Rico Statehood thing is a great way for the GOP to rebrand itself, if they can kick the racists out long enough to make some clear calls.

I think a lot of the problem is that many of the GOP positions are logical without racism, but then the racists show up and make them look bad.

I mean, controlling the border and trying to keep illegals out is logical and good for national security. Asking brown people for their papers is not.

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

The GOP in any sane country would be almost exactly what the Democrats are now, maybe a little to the right fiscally but not by much, and the Democrats would be much more liberal.

I expect 2016 to be really tough. Things aren't going perfectly? People are going to be pissed at Dems that it's not unicorns and rainbows after 8 years. Things going very well? People stay home content. Unless the Republicans run a Santorum or Bachmann (and possibly even then) it's going to be a hard fight.

I disagree with this only because Obama has given the dems a whole new way to campaign, with super targeted data and ground game. I fully expect the next dem candidate to revive Obama's system and use it. Democratic voter turn out should be great even if everything is good, because the democratic voter turn out machine is great. Even if things are going well, they'll target ground swell issues in specific areas to get people up and to the polls.

If they're competent they will. But they're Democrats so it'll take a while before the party permanently finds their balls. That's why the real test is what the party becomes post-Obama. Standard centrist procedure won't reproduce those results.

Yeah. Apparently Christie doing his job makes him a traitor, or whatever. Which fits if you think about it, since some Republicans advocate not hiring employees to sabotage the economy under Obama's term. How is it a bad thing that Christie's heart has grown three sizes?

Really Akin and Mourdoch should be perfect examples of what happens when you go further right. You lose the 10% of the electorate you fucking need to win. Romney did better than them, explain how being more conservative would have helped Romney when it hurt them.

Of course, logic and all that.

Indeed, and this is the root of the very problem the GOP faces right now. They literally cannot fathom how they went wrong, and their echo chamber's only response is, "Go Wronger."

The logic shouldn't be to hard for them. Around the nation, Americans chose to move the country in a more Progressive model; we elected more women, gays, and minorities than ever, and we voted to legalize gay marriage and marijuana use.

Your brain is not working properly if you think the reason your party lost out to Progressives is because you were too progressive.

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

The GOP in any sane country would be almost exactly what the Democrats are now, maybe a little to the right fiscally but not by much, and the Democrats would be much more liberal.

Disagree. The GOP would be like the conservative end of the Democrats.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

I don't think he would or expect it, but what are the chances that Christie says 'fuck this, I'm Independent / Democrat'?

I think it's pretty slim, but if he sees the Republicans have closed off his 2016 bid and he has nothing to gain by staying with them, could he say 'fuck you guys, i'm starting my own party...with blackjack and hookers'? Or is he going to Spool it up and keep on to 'fix it from the inside'?

I expect 2016 to be really tough. Things aren't going perfectly? People are going to be pissed at Dems that it's not unicorns and rainbows after 8 years. Things going very well? People stay home content. Unless the Republicans run a Santorum or Bachmann (and possibly even then) it's going to be a hard fight.

I disagree with this only because Obama has given the dems a whole new way to campaign, with super targeted data and ground game. I fully expect the next dem candidate to revive Obama's system and use it. Democratic voter turn out should be great even if everything is good, because the democratic voter turn out machine is great. Even if things are going well, they'll target ground swell issues in specific areas to get people up and to the polls.

I am much more worried about the scenario where everything is shit and people vote in a republican just to have something different.

I'm worried about the 'everything is shit' scenario too...but not necessarily that everything really is shit, but that people are convinced it is.

Can you believe that there are people today who really think the economy is worse than it was in 2008? I mean, individually, things may suck...but overall? The economy was in an honest to god freefall in 2008. The narrative is somehow working that Obama's economy sucks, when it objectively doesn't.

We also can't expect the Republicans to learn nothing from 2012. The advantages Obama had this year aren't secrets, and the Republicans aren't stupid. They are going to see what works and get better at it - if nothing else, they can throw money at it and duplicate it. Maybe not 100%, but close enough to negate most of that advantage.

Don't underestimate the Republicans. There are a lot of bubble living kool-aid sippers, but there are also quite a few pragmatic and intelligent Republicans who - even if they don't know how to do it - know they can pay someone who will.

if you lose the 1% and the racists there's nothing left of the republican party

I mean there's probably a few people; I guess they can have a cocktail party with the log cabin republicans or something

Well, there's the evangelicals, but I bet there's a strong overlap between them and the racists. Most bigots aren't too picky about their demarcation; brown people, gay people, sure, we'll hate 'em all.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

In some respects, that's how it should be. An honest Libertarian would never support a party so heavily entrenched in racism, voter intimidation, and religious social codes.

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

The GOP in any sane country would be almost exactly what the Democrats are now, maybe a little to the right fiscally but not by much, and the Democrats would be much more liberal.

Disagree. The GOP would be like the conservative end of the Democrats.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

Actually, I think most of us are advocating that they simply jettison the hyper religious. Let them create their own political party and get completely marginalized. The hyper religious and their ridiculous views on race, women, abortion, sexual rights and their insistence that America is a "Christian nation" are a huge reason Romney lost this election, and a huge reason the GOP is careening towards total irrelevance and permanent minority.

The saying used to go "It's the economy, stupid"...well in 2012, we got shown "It's social issues, stupid". The economy doesn't outweigh bigotry anymore, because the electorate is quickly becoming brown and female, the targets of most of that bigotry. It's personal to them, they aren't white males.

The GOP doesn't have a 1% problem, it has an old white religious bigot problem.

This thread underscores a lot of the problems my friends (and to a much lesser extent, me, as I'm a bit of a lib at heart despite my hatred for the more idiotic policies and grandstanding) -

You want to vote Republican, but the party isn't letting you. That's a problem, as one of the things I learned from an awesome political class I had once (backstory - at UNH during a Pres. Election year, so we had former pres candidates talking about how to win or lose, former governor Hugh Gregg and a number of other national figures talking candidly about campaigns, polls, how to spin and the fundamentals of elections) is that you NEVER THROW AWAY VOTES PEOPLE WANT TO GIVE YOU. You have to make sure you have all the easy votes, then ask everyone else for their vote due to a specific issue or event. That's what Obama did to a great extent and the R bloc gave away all their moderates.

There isn't much of an alternative to a militaristic big-government conservative Democratic party, except for a) an indeterminable mix party of bigots and rich people and corporate interests, or b) a moderate Libertarian party.

if you lose the 1% and the racists there's nothing left of the republican party

I mean there's probably a few people; I guess they can have a cocktail party with the log cabin republicans or something

Well, there's the evangelicals, but I bet there's a strong overlap between them and the racists. Most bigots aren't too picky about their demarcation; brown people, gay people, sure, we'll hate 'em all.

I think the evangelical/racism overlap is among the poor south.

The upper-middle class evangelical (who I'm most familiar with) just kind of get caught up in it and most would recoil in shock if they understood the origins of a few of their talking points.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

In some respects, that's how it should be. An honest Libertarian would never support a party so heavily entrenched in racism, voter intimidation, and religious social codes.

I don't think he would or expect it, but what are the chances that Christie says 'fuck this, I'm Independent / Democrat'?

I think it's pretty slim, but if he sees the Republicans have closed off his 2016 bid and he has nothing to gain by staying with them, could he say 'fuck you guys, i'm starting my own party...with blackjack and hookers'? Or is he going to Spool it up and keep on to 'fix it from the inside'?

I'd rather Christie not join the Democrats. We have enough centrist/conservatives as it is. I'd be fine with with him being an independent, though.

I'm worried about the 'everything is shit' scenario too...but not necessarily that everything really is shit, but that people are convinced it is.

Can you believe that there are people today who really think the economy is worse than it was in 2008? I mean, individually, things may suck...but overall? The economy was in an honest to god freefall in 2008. The narrative is somehow working that Obama's economy sucks, when it objectively doesn't.

We also can't expect the Republicans to learn nothing from 2012. The advantages Obama had this year aren't secrets, and the Republicans aren't stupid. They are going to see what works and get better at it - if nothing else, they can throw money at it and duplicate it. Maybe not 100%, but close enough to negate most of that advantage.

Don't underestimate the Republicans. There are a lot of bubble living kool-aid sippers, but there are also quite a few pragmatic and intelligent Republicans who - even if they don't know how to do it - know they can pay someone who will.

They are stupid, they make up for that by bring ruthless and cunning. That said, being stupid doesn't mean they're not dangerous. Especially when the Dems haven't mastered being on the offense permanently yet. I agree it's a bad idea to under-estimate the GOP.

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

The GOP in any sane country would be almost exactly what the Democrats are now, maybe a little to the right fiscally but not by much, and the Democrats would be much more liberal.

Disagree. The GOP would be like the conservative end of the Democrats.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

Actually, I think most of us are advocating that they simply jettison the hyper religious. Let them create their own political party and get completely marginalized. The hyper religious and their ridiculous views on race, women, abortion, sexual rights and their insistence that America is a "Christian nation" are a huge reason Romney lost this election, and a huge reason the GOP is careening towards total irrelevance and permanent minority.

The saying used to go "It's the economy, stupid"...well in 2012, we got shown "It's social issues, stupid". The economy doesn't outweigh bigotry anymore, because the electorate is quickly becoming brown and female, the targets of most of that bigotry. It's personal to them, they aren't white males.

The GOP doesn't have a 1% problem, it has an old white religious bigot problem.

That's the caricature of the religious right and not the whole reality.

Besides, there's a significant portion of Democrats who are anti-abortion and African Americans tend to not be so hot on the whole gay marriage thing either.

I see many republicans as needing just a bit of therapy to re-engage their insight. This will not work if you feed their paranoia. Some more with the racists.

‮Marty: The future, it's where you're going?Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

In some respects, that's how it should be. An honest Libertarian would never support a party so heavily entrenched in racism, voter intimidation, and religious social codes.

However, there's not many honest Libertarians.

See my signature quote from one of our own beloved forumers.

People often assume that moderate Libertarianism isn't a thing, and Lib just means anarchist. P.S. Pre-Trammel was the most fun UO age ever. It just sucked ass for a newb and was way hard to work your way up.

I think the majority of people in this thread, being Democratic voters, are completely unaware of what other people are looking for in a political party. Pretty much all the suggestions I've seen are trying to make the GOP indistinguishable from the Democrats.

The correct action is to jettison the 1% and tell the racists to shut up. Jettisoning the 1% would draw in the pro-life democrats due to a larger focus on social justice and expunging the racists would draw in the Hispanic and African American voters who would otherwise identify strongly with the religious right.

Of course, the 1% being in control makes that challenging, which is why I said I'm hoping for the GOP to die off and for the Democrats to split into a Liberal party and a Religious party.

The GOP in any sane country would be almost exactly what the Democrats are now, maybe a little to the right fiscally but not by much, and the Democrats would be much more liberal.

Disagree. The GOP would be like the conservative end of the Democrats.

That's a big difference and all the suggestions I'm seeing are to throw away the overlap that exists. UNLESS, everyone is actually suggesting to shunt the religious to the Democratic party and pull the socially liberal into the GOP. That's quite a massive overhaul though.

Actually, I think most of us are advocating that they simply jettison the hyper religious. Let them create their own political party and get completely marginalized. The hyper religious and their ridiculous views on race, women, abortion, sexual rights and their insistence that America is a "Christian nation" are a huge reason Romney lost this election, and a huge reason the GOP is careening towards total irrelevance and permanent minority.

The saying used to go "It's the economy, stupid"...well in 2012, we got shown "It's social issues, stupid". The economy doesn't outweigh bigotry anymore, because the electorate is quickly becoming brown and female, the targets of most of that bigotry. It's personal to them, they aren't white males.

The GOP doesn't have a 1% problem, it has an old white religious bigot problem.

That's the caricature of the religious right and not the whole reality.

Besides, there's a significant portion of Democrats who are anti-abortion and African Americans tend to not be so hot on the whole gay marriage thing either.

Anti-abortion is one thing. I support people who are peaceful pro-life (aka don't bomb abortion clinics) and have a reasonable view of rape, incest and mothers health. I don't support their view, but I support their right to have it.

We're talking about rape babies from god, and magical semen resisting vagina's. Everyone will just paint this as just some crazy southern guys, but some tacit internet research would show you that this are WIDELY held beliefs in the far religious right. No exception for incest or rape is part of the RNC platform.

Also, African-Americans polled recently were majority in support of gay marriage equality. This is not 1995 anymore.

The fact of the matter is, the completely cracked view of social issues that the religious right is forcing down the throats of the GOP is absolutely hurting the party. It hurt the party this election and it will continue to hurt the party. Not just at the presidential level, but at all levels. See Akin, Todd and Mourdock, Richard and both of them losing easy-to-take seats to democrats.

There isn't much of an alternative to a militaristic big-government conservative Democratic party, except for a) an indeterminable mix party of bigots and rich people and corporate interests, or b) a moderate Libertarian party.

I don't see b) at all.

Americans talk a good talk, but they don't walk a libertarian walk. See what happened when Bush tried to privatize SS.

The big undercurrent of the American political scene is that Americans like their government services. Alot.

I have lots of friends/acquaintances who are republicans though, and you know what? Until I started blocking them, some vaguely racist election-related shit was popping up on facebook every day.

you don't have to be running around like jesse helms to qualify as 'racist.' Note the whole 'taking our jobs' shtick, just as an example

Yeah, I'm not saying they don't exist. I have some of those appearing in my feed too.

But I also have a lot of friends whose position is basically "Ugh, I hate being a Republican but they're anti-abortion so I feel stuck". It helps that most of my friends are evangelicals under 30. So the combination of youth and religious conviction results in social conservatism without hating the other.

That's the caricature of the religious right and not the whole reality.

I hear this a lot but I don't see any basis in reality for it.

Simply, if your religious compulsion tells you to vote to restrict the rights of other for no other reason than religious doctrine and social mores, it doesn't matter how swell or friendly of a person you are in real life.

any kind of broad stroke will necessarily miss individuals who may or may not conform to demographics

with that said

by any measure you want to pick, the republican party is pretty much completely composed of white men and older and/or married white women. There's no other constituency to which they have any appeal. There's nobody in the republican party telling all these dudes making strange statements about rape that they're wrong, aside from in the sense that it's kind of awkward to actually say that shit in public. Ditto about the vaguely (or explicitly) racist comments; McCain was notable for calling people out on this issue and even he only really started doing it once it became kind of obvious he was losing.

I am quite sure you can find decent, hardworking people who are republicans. My grandmother is a republican, a mother of five and a wonderful person in general. She's also given to making extremely awkward statements about brown people.

so next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib
tell'em thank you for the offer, but you'd rather you live

That's the caricature of the religious right and not the whole reality.

I hear this a lot but I don't see any basis in reality for it.

Simply, if your religious compulsion tells you to vote to restrict the rights of other for no other reason than religious doctrine and social mores, it doesn't matter how swell or friendly of a person you are in real life.

Most of my close friends, at worst, abstained from voting on the NC Marriage Amendment. We might support civil unions instead of marriage, but we're out there.

We're talking about rape babies from god, and magical semen resisting vagina's. Everyone will just paint this as just some crazy southern guys, but some tacit internet research would show you that this are WIDELY held beliefs in the far religious right. No exception for incest or rape is part of the RNC platform.

Also, African-Americans polled recently were majority in support of gay marriage equality. This is not 1995 anymore.

I'm not here to argue the rape/incest position other than to say that the position is logically consistent. No health of the mother exceptions are bullshit though.

And I stand correct on the African Americans issue. They still tend to be more religious than white non-evangelicals (I can link a study if you'd like), there could still be support for the party I'm envisioning.

any kind of broad stroke will necessarily miss individuals who may or may not conform to demographics

with that said

by any measure you want to pick, the republican party is pretty much completely composed of white men and older and/or married white women. There's no other constituency to which they have any appeal. There's nobody in the republican party telling all these dudes making strange statements about rape that they're wrong, aside from in the sense that it's kind of awkward to actually say that shit in public. Ditto about the vaguely (or explicitly) racist comments; McCain was notable for calling people out on this issue and even he only really started doing it once it became kind of obvious he was losing.

I am quite sure you can find decent, hardworking people who are republicans. My grandmother is a republican, a mother of five and a wonderful person in general. She's also given to making extremely awkward statements about brown people.

Yeah, what I'm trying to argue for is a GOP that is for the younger conservative Christians, rather that ditching the religious right altogether.

Also, saying the position of "rape babies are gifts from God" is logically consistent seems pretty out there to me.

It's semantics. Only matters if you're in politics. Otherwise, a gift could be good, bad, or neutral

‮Marty: The future, it's where you're going?Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.

If nothing else, Republicans had to have learned this time around that if you make a creepy rape comment, you will lose your seat. Even if it was somewhat unintentional wording and not 100% crazy, doesn't matter, you're done. They need to learn this. You'd think they would have learned it decades ago when that Texan joked about how women should just enjoy rape since they can't do anything about it and then promptly lost the election he was so favored to win.

Also, saying the position of "rape babies are gifts from God" is logically consistent seems pretty out there to me.

Premise: Human life begins at conception
Premise: Human life is innately valuable
Premise: The fetus is not responsible for it's father's crimes
Conclusion: The fetus is a human with a right to life

You can disagree with premise #1 (or #2), but the conclusion follows.

And "gift from God" is a whole theodicy thing that is a thread in and of itself. I could link an article explaining why people familiar with Calvinist doctrine don't find it objectionable in concept, if not execution.